{ display: none; }

Sunday 12 October 2014

UKIP on 25%

UKIP Surge post Clacton

Survation puts UKIP on 25% in post-Clacton poll
A Survation poll for the Mail on Sunday has UKIP on an unbelievable 25% nationally.

The poll results do need to be treated with some caution as it was conducted on Friday whilst UKIP was in every newspaper and on every news programme thanks to Douglas Carswell's historic by-election victory in Clacton but even allowing for that, it is a fantastic showing for the party.

Lib Dem

Survation's analysis makes grim reading for both Cameron and Miliband who would be unable to secure a majority or even form a workable minority government. As Nigel Farage has rightly ruled out a coalition with any party after the next election we could realistically see a ConLab coalition in 2015 as both parties are so similar nowadays on all the major issues or alternatively a minority Labour government supported by UKIP on a supply and demand basis. Without a UKIP majority the future looks pretty grim for the country but with 25% of the vote we could secure as many as 128 MPs which is a sizeable force for good in Westminster.

Tuesday 7 October 2014

Government Spending

UKIP Savings and the UK Debt

Leave the EU
   Direct Cost
     Cost of EU membership, we pay    = £55 million per day, or £20 billion per year
     All Grants, Subsides, etc.from EU = £22 million per day, or    £8 billion per year
     So SAVINGS                                  = £33 million per day, or  £12 billion per year
   Indirect Cost
     Regulation                                          = £264 million per day, or  £96.4 billion per year
     CAP & Protectionism                        = £143 million per day, or  £52.2 billion per year
     Lost Jobs to foreigners                     =   £16.5 million per day, or  £6 billion per year
     CFP/CAP/Water Stnd/Stdn.Loan =    £16.5 million per day, or  £6 billion per year
     Benefit/Health tourism                   =     £11 million per day, or  £4 billion per year
     Total Indirect cost of EU                 = £451 million per day, or  £164.6 billion per year
     So SAVINGS                                  = £451 million per day, or  £164.6 billion per year

Cut Foreign Aid
     Cost of Foreign Aid                          = £30 million per day, or £11 billion per year
     Spent on real humanitarian aid    =   £4.3 million per day, or   £1.6 billion per year
     So SAVINGS                                   = £25.7 million per day, or  £9.4 billion per year

Total savings from Leaving EU and Foreign Aid is £198 billion per year
                      and over lifetime of Parliament (5yr) is £990 billion

So if all of the UKIP savings were used to reduce the countries debt, that is expected to peak at about £1,600bn then it would reduce it to 600bn. And then in the next 5 year parliament it would produce a surplus of £390,bn. This is an overly simplistic view but does put the savings proposed by UKIP into perspective. All the other political parties are only hoping to stop increasing the total debt by the end of the next parliament, and after that to reduce it by perhaps a few billion each year (it's about £1,500 billion altogether). So it will take them centuries to pay back the debt. Not just a burden on your children but your grand-children and great grand-children too.

Note: £1,000,000 = £1 million= £1m                                                                                                        
£1,000,000,000 = £1000m = £1 billion = £1bn
Debt simply refers to the amount of money owed by the UK government. This is the debt that has been built up over many years by many governments - i.e.the running total.
Public sector net debt

The current budget deficit, or surplus, is the difference between the government's everyday expenses and its revenues; in other words, between what it spends and what it receives. In recent years, it has spent a lot more than it receives, so we are used to hearing about a budget deficit.
Both the government and opposition are pledging to return the current budget to surplus in the next Parliament.
And there is a direct link between the current budget and debt. If the government runs a deficit, it is effectively overspending and, therefore, in most cases adding to the overall pile of debt. By running a surplus, the government can chip away at this pile.

Structural deficit
Some politicians, particularly from the Conservative Party, talk not just of deficits, but of structural deficits.
The structural deficit is basically the current budget deficit, adjusted to strip out the cyclical nature of the economy. You would expect, for example, the budget deficit to narrow when the economy grows after a sluggish period. The structural deficit attempts to exclude the effect of this recovery.
In other words, the structural deficit is the bit of the deficit that remains even when the economy is operating at full tilt. Or put another way, it's the underlying deficit that is not directly affected by economic performance.
Structural deficit

Borrowing is... well, borrowing. Strictly speaking, borrowing and deficit (current budget) are not the same thing.
The two are linked, of course, as one covers the other, but the government doesn't just borrow money to pay back the deficit. It also borrows to invest.
The current budget covers everyday expenses - welfare payments, departmental costs etc. But the government also makes big investments, such as infrastructure projects, that are not included.
If the government is running a deficit, it may make investments on top of this, and will therefore need to borrow to cover both.
Net borrowing

Printed, Published and Promoted by Camborne & Redruth Constituency of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) on behalf of D Evans
all at 7 Bodriggy Villas Cornwall TR27 4PG

Monday 6 October 2014

The effect of UKIP

An Analysis

The Fabian Society has published a report by Marcus Roberts, supported by research from Rob Ford and Ian Warren, about the threat that UKIP poses to Labour.  
The report is titled "Revolt on the Left"
The report’s “research cross referenced demographic data based on ‘Left behind’ Mosaic groups favourable to UKIP with 2010 Parliamentary majorities which considered the scale of UKIP threat in terms of critical, very serious, serious and moderate ratings”.
To burrow into the detail it is necessary to scour the appendixes to the report.  Any analysis has to start somewhere – and this is with the seats that the authors list under the headings “critical” and “very serious”, on the simple ground that these are the most likely ones in which UKIP will shape the result.
Seats at risk from a UKIP challenge (Table One):
  • Critical Risk: Clacton, Great Grimsby, South Thanet, Thurrock.
  • High Risk: Dudley North, Eastleigh, Great Yarmouth, Plymouth Moor View, Rother Valley,Rotherham, Waveney.
Labour-Conservative local contests where UKIP have most potential to damage Labour prospects (Table Five):
  • Critical Risk: Southampton Itchen, Great Grimsby, Walsall North, Plymouth Sutton and Devonport.
  • Very Serious Risk: Plymouth Moor View, Carlisle, Lincoln, Telford, Dudley North, Halifax,Wolverhampton North-East, Birmingham Edgbaston.
Labour-Conservative seats where UKIP have most potential to damage Conservative prospects (Table Seven):
  • Critical Risk: Warwickshire North, Cardiff North, Broxtowe, Stroud.
Seats where UKIP have most potential to damage Labour prospects (Table Four):
  • Critical Risk: Sheffield Central, Southampton Itchen, Ashfield, Hull North, Bradford East, Norwich South, Great Grimsby, Walsall North, Thurrock, Rochdale, Plymouth Sutton and Devonport.
  • Very Serious Risk: Chesterfield, Plymouth Moor View, Carlisle, Lincoln, Telford, Dudley North,Halifax, Wolverhampton North East, Birmingham Edgbaston.
Seats where UKIP have most potential to damage Conservative prospects (Table 6):
  • Critical Risk: Camborne and Redruth, Warwickshire North, Dorset Mid and North Poole, Oxford West and Abingdon, Solihull, Truro and Falmouth, Newton Abbot, Cardiff North, Wells, Broxtowe,Somerton and Frome, Stroud, Montgomeryshire.
  • Very Serious Risk: St Austell and NewquaySt Ives, Harrogate and Knaresborough, Devon West and Torridge, Cornwall North.
Now that this roll-call is complete, let’s see what damage is done to which parties if the Critical Risk is delivered.
Seats gained by the Conservatives: Southampton Itchen, Great Grimsby, Walsall North.
Seats gained by Labour: Warwickshire North, Cardiff North, Broxtowe, Stroud.
A Labour net gain of one from the Conservatives
But that’s only if one is looking at the Conservative-Labour marginals.
If the Critical Risk is delivered in other Labour-held seats, we have -
Seats gained by the Liberal Democrats: Sheffield Central, Ashfield, Hull North, Rochdale.
A Labour loss of four to the Liberal Democrats.
And if the Critical Risk is delivered in other Conservative-held seats, we have -
Seats gained by the Liberal Democrats: Camborne and Redruth, Oxford West and Abingdon,Truro and Falmouth, Newton Abbot, Montgomeryshire.
A Conservative loss of five to the Liberal Democrats.
But all that is only looking at Critical risk. Now let’s see what damage is done to which parties if the Very Serious Risk is delivered.
Seats also gained by the Conservatives: Plymouth Moor View, Telford, Dudley North, Halifax,Wolverhampton North-East, Birmingham Edgbaston.
Seats also gained by the Liberal Democrats: Chesterfield, Harrogate and Knaresborough, Devon West and Torridge.
The Conservatives are now on a net gain of five from Labour, and a net loss of seven to the Liberal Democrats.
A number of qualifications:
  • Not factored in are the possible UKIP gains because the main interest is in the effect of a strong UKIP vote on Conservative-Labour marginals.
  • Similarly, it is assumed in the non-marginals that the party which was second in 2010 gains the seat.  This is both an objective measure and a dubious one.  If Sheffield Central, for example, really is at Critical Risk, the party most likely to gain is UKIP.
  • It can be argued that measuring Critical Risk and Very Serious Risk is too conservative (with a small c) and that UKIP’s buoyancy in the polls would justify also looking at Serious Risk.
  • Polls have consistently shown UKIP drawing more support from the Conservatives than from Labour.  However, the Fabian paper claims is that this is more so in “safe” Tory seats than the marginals in which UKIP have a very strong presence.  In these seats, UKIP actually helps the Conservatives over Labour – but this gain is more than offset by UKIP helping the Liberal Democrats over the Conservatives.
  • A crucial question in Conservative-Labour marginals, therefore, is what the effect of UKIP is in such seats in which it does not have a very strong presence.  If the Fabian paper is right in the first place, and if again the effect of UKIP in seats where it does not have a strong presence is similar to the effect where it does, the assumption that UKIP will help to deliver Labour the next election must be revised.
  • By the same token, any overall movement of UKIP voters back to the Tories overall will have less effect than might be supposed – since their concentration in safe Conservative seats will affect the outcome in those crucial marginals less than has often been supposed.
Summarised from an article by Paul Goodman

Printed, Published and Promoted by Camborne & Redruth Constituency of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) on behalf of D Evans
all at 7 Bodriggy Villas Cornwall TR27 4PG

Vote UKIP - Hurt Labour and LibDems

Putting the Lie to "Vote UKIP get Labour"

UKIP vote decomposed - who is being hurt the most

Given the discussion about UKIP and who it is taking votes from, it would make sense to look at some of the numbers. Steve Fisher produced a piece shortly after the local elections that looked at changes in national vote shares, projected from local elections. Start by doing the same exercise using polling data.First of all, here are the headline voting intentions, starting with the 2010 election and the average of YouGov's Polls for the 2nd quarter of each year since. Such a long period was chosen in order to iron out short term fluctuations, to get a view of the 'underlying' shift. It also has the benefit of a huge sample (around 85,000) and thus a tiny margin of error.
                              2010             2011              2012             2013             2014

Looking, as Steve did, at the changes over two-year intervals, it can be seen that the polls confirm the picture. CON down 4.6, UKIP up 4.6, with LAB and LIB pretty much mirroring each other. Then from 2012 to 2014, LAB down 6.2, UKIP up 6, with CON and LIB showing practically zero change.


Of course, it isn't quite that simple, as there is other churn taking place. But the overall picture is striking.

Now look at what the poll internals say. In March 2013, YouGov published this piece showing a breakdown of UKIP voters based on their January 2013 sample (in which UKIP polled 9.1%) and another one 11 months later when UKIP were polling 12.5%. By multiplying the breakdown components by the current vote, it can be seen how many points of UKIP's current polling comes from each party.

Using YouGov's tables from this August 2014, the same figures can be calculated, but in a different way, multiplying the percentage of 2010 CON LAB and LIB votes that now intend to vote UKIP, by the 2010 vote shares.

Over the entire 18 months from Feb 2013 to Aug 2014, the vote share of CON to UKIP switchers has increased by just 0.4 points, from 5.5 to 5.9. Over the same period, LAB to UKIP switchers have increased by over a point from 0.6 to 1.7 and LIB to UKIP almost as much, from 1.4 to 2.2.

So it can be seen that UKIP has hurt the Tories the most overall, but have hurt both Labour and the Lib Dems considerably more in the last year or two. One might even conclude that CON to UKIP switchers have been 'maxed out' and that further gains will only come from other parties.

Whether the recent defections change things in terms of proportions remains to be seen. Interpreting anything during conference season is fraught with danger due to response bias and genuine short-term volatility.

Extract from Number Cruncher Blog, an excellent piece of work
see   http://numbercruncheruk.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/uk

Printed, Published and Promoted by Camborne & Redruth Constituency of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) on behalf of D Evans
all at 7 Bodriggy Villas Cornwall TR27 4PG

An interesting analysis

Some UKIP hopefuls?
Note Camborne and Redruth

In last year’s local elections, UKIP support was equivalent to a national share of 22%. According to an analysis by Lewis Baston, they “won” nine parliamentary seats; that is, when the results of individual wards were added together to create notional results for Westminster constituencies, they came top in nine. All are currently Conservative-held, although two, Great Yarmouth and Thanet South, are seats that Labour lost last time and hope to win back. These nine are now the best hopes for UKIP (along with Eastleigh, where they came a close second in last year’s by-election).
Printed, Published and Promoted by Camborne & Redruth Constituency of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) on behalf of D Evans
all at 7 Bodriggy Villas Cornwall TR27 4PG

Sunday 5 October 2014

What do you think?

Some Key Issues

Repeal the spiteful Tory Bedroom Tax
Repeal Green Taxes, Stop Green Subsides, Lower Energy Prices
Support a Fully elected House of Lords
Reduce Air Passenger Duty
Reduce VAT
Lower taxes on Petrol and Diesel for motor cars
Stop the Mass Retention of your Communications and Data
More generous Benefits for Seriously ill and Disabled
No detention without trial
Scrap the expensive Police and Crime Commissioners
Stop abuse of Zero Hours contracts
Royal Mail should be a modernised un-privatised Public Service
Lower Rail Fares
Require Pub companies to offer rent only leases
Increase the scope of Legal Aid
Do not sell England’s public Forests
Stronger Military Covenant
Reduce University Tuition fees for economically key subjects

Local Referenda on local issues

Printed, Published and Promoted by Camborne & Redruth Constituency of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) on behalf of D Evans
all at 7 Bodriggy Villas Cornwall TR27 4PG

Is this how you think?


         The constituency has a unique charm as a very popular tourist destination, but it has been left worryingly short of investment and other economic activity. 
          Transport links are of limited capacity and vulnerable to adverse weather. 
          Many inhabitants work in tourism, our largest industry, but it is seasonal and not a basis for year round economic growth. 
          Our fishing industry has been destroyed by membership of the EU and the Common Fishing Policy. Agriculture is depressed by the EU Common Agriculture Policy and associated regulation and wastage. Our many businesses suffer under EU regulation and restriction. 
          In the current troubled world this country should try to be as efficient and self-sufficient as possible in everything that matters. 
          Leaving the EU is fundamental to our better future. Governed by ourselves for ourselves, not by foreigners for their benefit. Doing what is right for us. Using common sense and getting on with it, rather than repeated consultation, procrastination, and limitation by regulation. 
          We need to make Britain great again. Regaining control of our borders so we can determine who comes and who stays. Standing on our own, trading to our advantage with the whole world, not just a stagnating Europe. Not held back by the failing Euro currency and the failed basket case economies of such as Greece, Italy, and Spain. 
          Not put at serious risk and considerable expense by a foreign Supreme Court and a Human Rights Act that only seems to benefit criminals and terrorists. 
          We must retain control of our armed services and strengthen them for our defence in this dangerous uncertain world. Not allow them to be subsumed into a European defence force.
          Let’s be governed by ordinary people from the real world, not by an out of touch political elite, many of whom are very wealthy, and few of whom have ever had a real job.

Printed, Published and Promoted by Camborne & Redruth Constituency of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) on behalf of D Evans
all at 7 Bodriggy Villas Cornwall TR27 4PG

Liberal Democrat worries about cost of EU

View of a Liberal Democrat - Richard Dean

UKIP claim that we pay £55 million per day to be a member of the EU. My UKIP neighbours ask what we get back for that money. What should I tell them?
First off, it seems we get about £22 million a day back in cash, in the form of grants and subsidies. But even UKIP neighbours can do simple arithmetic. That leaves a net cost of about £33 million per day, or about 50p per day on average for every man, woman, and child in the UK. What do we get in return?
Some say: “Simple – we get free trade”. But, say my UKIP neighbours: “We’d get that anyway if we weren’t a member. The UK is a nice big fat market for continental companies, and they don’t want to lose their profit centres! They want access to the UK and will grant access to the continent in return.”
So, would we really get free trade outside of the EU? Do we really have to pay that £33 million to access free trade with Europe?
So I say: “We get to participate in making the rules, and that’s valuable”. “Ha ha!” say my neighbours, “Think Sovereignty! Think unelected civil servants in Brussels making the rules!”. “But wait!” I retort, “Isn’t the role of MEPs to check the civil servants’ proposals, even to reject them sometimes?” “Are you joking?” say my neighbours. “MEPs have no power; anyway it’s a gravy train for them! That’s where the money goes!” “Nige too?” I meekly ask. “No, not Nige” they reply, “He’s the good guy!”.
The European Movement says we get about £25 billion extra GDP from the Single Market, and more in “wider benefits”. But how does that work? And how can it be explained to my UKIP neighbours when they say: “Wouldn’t the European Movement say that anyway? It’s all a big trick of the Money Power!” ?
So I’m stumped. I come over to Liberal Democrat Voice for a bit of enlightenment and I see the Chair of the Association of Liberal Democrat Engineers and Scientists claiming that “80% of Lib Dem voters more-or-less reject…the idea of ‘Ever-closer Union’”. One respondent to that post had a great argument about how our future is a choice between pooling sovereignty or accepting European Free Trade Association status. But that’s a prediction about what might happen, and we all know how uncertain predictions can be!
And I remember my neighbours’ parting words “We’d do better OUT as a sovereign nation – free to do what we like!”. Another “what might happen” argument – but one they accept.
Well, I tried to say that 50p a day isn’t much, even for someone on a low wage – it’s less than the annual cost of inflation. But no-one believed that, not even my friends!
So now my head hurts. Please help! Is UKIP winning the argument?
I’d just like to know what we get for £33 million a day.

Printed, Published and Promoted by Camborne & Redruth Constituency of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) on behalf of D Evans
all at 7 Bodriggy Villas Cornwall TR27 4PG

UKIP on course to win Rochester and Strood

UKIP 9% Lead in Rochester and Strood

Tory defector Mark Reckless is on course to win back his Commons seat in a stunning victory for UKIP, according to an opinion poll.
The eurosceptic party enjoys a nine-point lead in Rochester and Strood, the latest research conducted by Survation for the Mail on Sunday found.
It suggests David Cameron faces a tough fight to avoid a highly-damaging by-election defeat in the Kent seat.
Mr Reckless rocked the opening of the Conservative Party conference with the announcement he was quitting to stand for Nigel Farage's outfit, just weeks after Douglas Carswell also made the switch.
While Mr Carswell is the clear favourite to become the first MP elected as a Ukip candidate in Clacton on Thursday, Mr Farage had conceded the lower personal following enjoyed by Mr Reckless made the second seat a harder prospect.
But the telephone polling, which puts Ukip ahead by 40% to 31%, will encourage his supporters and concern Conservatives, with 40% of those who voted Tory in 2010 now saying they will switch.
More than two thirds (70%) of those planning to back Ukip said it was in support of the party's policies as opposed to 18% who said it was an anti-Government protest and 12% who said they liked the candidate.
The vast majority - 88% - said they would maintain that support at next year's general election.

CON 31% (-18), LAB 25% (-3), LD 2% (-14), UKIP 40% (+40), OTHER 1% (-5)

Printed, Published and Promoted by Camborne & Redruth Constituency of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) on behalf of D Evans
all at 7 Bodriggy Villas Cornwall TR27 4PG

Saturday 4 October 2014

Camborne and Redruth Constituency Map

Area covered

Printed, Published and Promoted by Camborne & Redruth Constituency of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) on behalf of D Evans
all at 7 Bodriggy Villas Cornwall TR27 4PG

Camborne and Redruth Polling result for JUNE 2014

UKIP closing in!

Printed, Published and Promoted by Camborne & Redruth Constituency of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) on behalf of D Evans
all at 7 Bodriggy Villas Cornwall TR27 4PG

Liberal Democrat, Labour, Conservative method

The Logic of LibLabCon Government

Printed, Published and Promoted by Camborne & Redruth Constituency of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) on behalf of D Evans
all at 7 Bodriggy Villas Cornwall TR27 4PG

Liberal Democrat, Labour, Conservative stategies

How LibLabCon Government works

Printed, Published and Promoted by Camborne & Redruth Constituency of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) on behalf of D Evans
all at 7 Bodriggy Villas Cornwall TR27 4PG